Dodge Caravan 2002 Transmission Problem

Why do you think that? I've expressed reservations about their surveys, and your own earlier statement says this -- with a lot of exaggeration.

See the bracketed words. Again, all CR is doing is reporting the reliability year by year, so how do the exact versions of the transmissions matter?

The correlation button on a calculator isn't biased.

CR doesn't take money from advertisers, which makes them inherently less biased than other magazines.

No, I mean a real answer, not a piece of flippant fluff.

The problem with your thinking is that CR's satisfaction surveys ask only about the whole car, not each component, as their reliability surveys do.

Daniel can explain his viewpoints better than I can.

Couldn't manufacturing problems also cause big differences in reliability?

If you look at CR's reliability charts for vehicles that differ only in name, like a Chrysler Voyager vs. Dodge Caravan, you'll rarely find no more than a one-rank difference, i.e. the engine of one may be rated much better than average but merely better than average for the other vehicle. It seems that when the differences are greater, then the vehicles or their parts came from different factories.

What about the possibility of defects in manufacture?

Because you have expressed unwarranted confidence in CR's "data".

It matters when the transmission systems are the same (not just similar, not almost the same, not mostly alike, but *IDENTICAL* in all respects, including subsystems, control systems, vehicle weight, engine power and all other parameters relevant to the transmission's health) for model years CR claims have significantly different system reliability.

There are only two plausible explanations:

1) The actual differences in transmission problem rates are insignificantly small between CR's "much worse than average", "worse than average", "average", "better than average", and "much better than average" categories, such that the classifications are statistically meaningless and therefore meaningless overall, or 2) CR's sampling methods are sufficiently garberated as to produce random results.

Or, (3), both of the above.

GIGO. Do you remember what that stands for?

So they're fond of trumpeting. In point of fact, every issue of CR is nothing but an 80-page-long "Look at us, we are so fabulous and wonderful and unbiased, and we're experts in everything from oil filters to red wine" advertisement for Consumers Union and the various publications they put out.

DS

Consumer Reports reliability reports are based upon its subscriber base which submit reliability information once a year.

I find their general trends to reflect reality in the market place. The reports for Chrysler transmissions show that they were a real problem back in the early to mid 90's and that they have significantly improved ever since.

The best source for reliability data would be the much larger sample Chrysler has based upon warranty work; but Chrysler keeps that data close to its vest.

Consumer Reports did find that US made short wheel base models had different reliability issues than long wheel base Canadian built mini-vans. This turned out to be quite accurate. But giving any one rating for any one area too much weight gives too much credibility to their reliability reports considering their relatively small data base.

Richard.

Because the exact same transmission design is used in several of the years listed, yet the reliability ratings are dramatically different year to year. The tranmissions don't know what year they are so they have know way to know that they should break if made in one year, but not break if made the year after.

If the data was at all accurate, you would expect to see step changes in reliability only if a step change was made in the transmission design, materials or assembly processes. The reality is that none of these have happened at every major reliability change listed in the CR table. Thus the data is very highly suspect at best.

Matt

Haven't there been updates to the TCM code during that time?

I still remember the difference in ratings between the Chevy Nova and the Toyota sister model (what ever it was, I forget). The two had vastly different CR ratings when, point of fact, the two cars were *identical* and manufactured in the *same plant*. That did it for me decades ago.

"Self-selection" and "Sample population" are concepts covered in any first-year stats course.

I don't. Not since about 1984!

Agreed.

Yep. That's one of a great many examples. They were also effusive in their praise of the 1990 Volkswagen Jetta's quality and reliability. And of the

1986 Lawn Chief #51D lawn mower. And of a particular 1987 Sears Kenmore dishwasher. And of a particular phone. And a particular oil filter, etc., ad nauseam, *all* of which, in my experience, contained major flaws in design, engineering, materials and/or build, which in turn caused poor reliability, poor performance and/or poor durability. My product experiences got much better when I quit reading CR and started using my own brain instead.

And then, a couple years ago, when they declared themselves headlamp experts and started "testing" car headlamps based on criteria fabricated out of whole cloth, well...

Not between several of the "worse than average"/"average" or "worse than average"/"better than average" year pairs in that chart.

which was several years after they comparison-tested a Toyota Celica V6 and a Mustang II I4. Guess which had better acceleration.

When did I post it? All I asked was why Chrysler changed the fluid specs so many times.

I remember something about the ratings for those cars because I was undecided between them, and they always received similar ratings from the magazine, not vastly different ones.

The 1985 & later Novas/Prizms were identical to the FWD Corollas, except for body panels and, at least in the early years, also interior, radio, radiator, and possibly the driveshafts. The factory in California originally made only Novas but later added Corollas to the same assembly line (first the FX-16, rather different from the regular Corolla), and, at least initially, the Chevy and Toyota brand vehicles had different ABS. Virtually all the reported differences in reported reliability for these cars appeared to be related to the differing components.

Do you mean I can run the transmission without any? ;)

If it wasn't about breakdowns, why did they issue a bulletin warning Ultradrive owners to ignore the DEXRON marking stamped into the dipstick?

Yes, I seem to remember that anomaly as well. I'm not saying though that CR is at fault as much as their subscribers, of which I'll admit I am one. Assuming they aren't editting the data, the likely issue is the data submitted by their subscribers. I know how fickle people can be and how easily mislead. After CR tells people for years how great Toyota's are and how poor Chevy's are, I can easily see people being conditioned to question every little flaw in a Chevy and overlooking similar issues with a Toyota.

I recently test drove several small cars, Toyota Corolla and Dodge Neon in particular. I expected the Corolla to me miles ahead of the Neon given that they are nearly at opposite ends of the CR rating spectrum. I believe the Corolla is still in the top 5, although it has slipped in the last few years and the Neon was dead last as I recall. I found the driving position of the Corolla to be poor with the steering wheel much too close to the dash and the pedals. I simply couldn't get a comfortable driving position. Either my knees hit the bolster or my arms were stretched out virtually straight. Also, the standard shift models (I drove two in case one was an anomaly) were almost impossible to shift without having the engine rev during shifts. You literally had to consciously let off the throttle a good 1/2 second or so before depressing the clutch to avoid this. I've driven manual transmission vehicles for 30 years and never had anything like this.

I found the Neon to be a fairly pleasant car to drive. A little more engine noise and vibration than the Corolla, but also better power. And the steering wheel wasn't quite as long a stretch and the shifting was much better. I was planning to buy a Neon until I found that this was the last year and also the dealer couldn't locate one even close to what I wanted. Most come with that blasted deck spoiler which impedes the rear visiblity, which is not geat to start with.

Matt

How can you rule out changes in manufacturing unless you're an insider who've very familiar with what goes on with the company? After all there have been recalls for newer vehicles where the design had been in production for years.

I'm not saying that CR is anywhere close to perfect, but some of the criticisms expressed here about their surveys don't seem valid and sometimes even outright false (i.e., twins with different brands from the same factory getting very different quality ratings). There have even been recalls for newer vehicles Also how do you explain why the CR surveys show very similar results for mechanically identical vehicles, such as Dodge and Chrysler minivans, even though their owners are surveyed separately?

Daniel,

Another issue with the CR data is how can one possibly compare reports of failure rates in 2004 vehicles with failure rates in 1997 vehicles? It's measuring completely different things. For example, what if the transmissions were completely reliable up to 50k miles, then about 10% immediately failed, one would think that the transission were rather poor, however, since there would be very few 2004 vehicles that had done 50k miles (if the report is published in 2005) the transmssions would appear to be reliable.

It's not like these are the result of an accelerated life test -- they are (claimed to be) consumer figures.

Because it affected the performance and shifting. As ATF+ has different properties then Dextron. If you have Dextron in your car (why? I don't know). It will provide enough efficiency in moving your car to a repair facility if you are out of or low in fluid. BUT IT Must be drained. If not it will cause Harsh shifting and chatter, as the Fluid co-efficeny is different then the specs of ATF+

But are you trying to say, that tranny fluid protects from "breakdowns" of gears that are flawed, tranny cases leaking, and external damage. After-all they all can cause a breakdown! Let alone the sensors that short out causing limp-mode "breakdowns" If you want to know what specific breakdowns mention them! Oh, I guess an alternator failing, causing a "breakdown" is due to fluid too! Lets also mention Fluid "Breakdown" caused by heating and cooling and wearing of the components.